Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LastFootnote]

I don't know if Vendor actually needs a buff.  The Platinum game is a special case and not worth balancing around, but it still might be good enough, and the crazy combos with Jubilee or even being able to buy two Vendors lets you stock tokens and use them to make finesse plays.  I favor Scavenger a lot - maybe too heavily.  Getting the chosen card in your hand immediately rather than in your next hand seems like it should be a really strong one-shot (or multi-shot if you have Jubilee on the board)

Anyway, if it's balanced, then I wouldn't buff it just to make it more popular.  The extra token would stand out as kind of odd anyway.

Well, cards that aren't popular get cut. There's no point in having a card that nobody buys, or that nobody except me buys. It has to look good enough to go for, and so far people aren't going for it. Having the +1 Card right up top might help, and maybe that doesn't buff it out of the $5 range.

As far as the lookthrough goes, Scavenger always makes you put a card on your deck.  Inn always lets you choose any number of cards on buy.  Counting House lets you choose "any number".  Herald is the only example where you have to pay to do something with your discard pile, and you don't get to look and then choose whether to overpay (never mind that there isn't a way to "choose later" X-D ).  Anyway, the "look through and pick one" feels like a single unit, and I feel like Donald would be like, "what, can't remember where your KC is?  Are you asleep?"  But he hates fan sets regardless.

One thing I've learned from playtesting Adventures is that practical considerations trump precedent every time. With Vendor, it's easier to let you look and it makes sense to let you look. You want to look in order to make an informed decision. So why not let you look? The only real reason would be because it's too slow, but trying to remember what's in your discard might be just as slow or slower.

Off topic, but is the art that you use public domain somehow, or from DeviantArt or something else?

It's just whatever I can Google up, same as Donald's prototypes.

[Minotaur]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

[TheOthin]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?

[LastFootnote]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?

As Donald has said before, actions in a game are illegal by default. The rules don't tell you that you can't remove Supply piles mid-game and replace them with other ones, but that doesn't mean they allow it. The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules don't specify that you may take notes.

[pacovf]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?

As Donald has said before, actions in a game are illegal by default. The rules don't tell you that you can't remove Supply piles mid-game and replace them with other ones, but that doesn't mean they allow it. The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules don't specify that you may take notes.

I would rather say that you are only allowed to do something that isn't properly defined in the rules if failing to do so would be disruptive to the flow of the game as codified in the rules.

Otherwise you better learn to hold your breath.

[TheOthin]

One answer to "why not look?" is "because looking first is for weaklings with no short term memory".  Same thing with the "no taking notes" rule.  Not that I agree.

I still question the existence of that "no taking notes" rule. It isn't codified, is it?

As Donald has said before, actions in a game are illegal by default. The rules don't tell you that you can't remove Supply piles mid-game and replace them with other ones, but that doesn't mean they allow it. The rules tell you what you can do, and the rules don't specify that you may take notes.

The rules tell you that the cards in the Supply pile stay available until some ingame event, such as buying out that pile, make them unavailable. They also do not offer any way for cards to be introduced into the Supply mid-game.

If, in the middle of the game, I were to take the Witch pile away from the board and stick a pile of Laboratories in its place, the game would not recognize this action. The rules would still say that Witches are in the Supply and available to be bought, while Laboratories are not. There isn't any default understanding that moving cards around is prohibited; the game just doesn't acknowledge it as affecting the game state. Either that or there is a rule explicitly prohibiting it; I haven't checked the rules, but that would make the whole scenario irrelevant anyway.

It's the same deal with notes. If the game does not acknowledge them at all in its rules, the notes do not influence the game state and the rules do not restrict the note-taking.

[Minotaur]

So it's safe to have a Dr. Pepper?

On a side note, sorry for the off topic subthread.  It naturally deviated from an on-topic discussion, I swear!

[LastFootnote]

Thinking of another Trade token card. Maybe I have too many remodels already, but this is more a deck-thinner.

Tinker
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+$1. Trash 2 cards from your hand. You may pay a Trade token to gain a card costing up to their total cost.
When you gain this, take a Trade token.

I honestly have no idea if this is costed appropriately. I could also bump it up to +$2 and cost it at $5, but it's nice when deck thinners are cheap. Anyway, you start out trashing junk, and then eventually you can use its token ability to get a mini-Forge effect. Opinions?

[Minotaur]

Early-game trashing looks nicer at 3/4.  Poor Trading Post...  Considering that it costs a token to Forge with Tinker, my guess is that it would be even weaker than Trading Post, since you don't even get to "keep" the "Silver" you get.

[LastFootnote]

Early-game trashing looks nicer at 3/4.  Poor Trading Post...  Considering that it costs a token to Forge with Tinker, my guess is that it would be even weaker than Trading Post, since you don't even get to "keep" the "Silver" you get.

Well, I compare this to Steward and Remake. As an early-game trasher it's stronger than Steward because it gives +$1. It doesn't become an engine component later, but it will have its Forge ability once. Likewise, Remake gets you Silvers or other $3 cards for your Estates. Tinker makes it overwhelmingly likely that you can buy a $3 card after you play it, possibly more depending on what else is in your hand.

[Minotaur]

Early-game trashing looks nicer at 3/4.  Poor Trading Post...  Considering that it costs a token to Forge with Tinker, my guess is that it would be even weaker than Trading Post, since you don't even get to "keep" the "Silver" you get.

Well, I compare this to Steward and Remake. As an early-game trasher it's stronger than Steward because it gives +$1. It doesn't become an engine component later, but it will have its Forge ability once. Likewise, Remake gets you Silvers or other $3 cards for your Estates. Tinker makes it overwhelmingly likely that you can buy a $3 card after you play it, possibly more depending on what else is in your hand.

Right, it's sort of "steward-and-a-half" in the $4 version (with no token).  The $5 version with no token is even worse than Trading Post.

[LastFootnote]

Right, it's sort of "steward-and-a-half" in the $4 version (with no token).  The $5 version with no token is even worse than Trading Post.

I wonder if I should make it cost $3 instead. Originally I thought Tinker/Tinker opening might be too strong, but in retrospect it's probably not great. Well, it might be, because after you trash down, you can use a token to Tinker your other Tinker and get something better. I'll see how it plays at $4.

[LibraryAdventurer]

From looking at it, I think it would be better at $3.
It may be better then Steward for trashing, but in the mid to late game this is usually going to be a dead card when you don't use the trade token because of the forced trashing. If you're able to open tinker/tinker, letting you forge one of them into something else, I think that balances it some to make up for being a dead card sometimes.

[Co0kieL0rd]

From looking at it, I think it would be better at $3.
It may be better then Steward for trashing, but in the mid to late game this is usually going to be a dead card when you don't use the trade token because of the forced trashing. If you're able to open tinker/tinker, letting you forge one of them into something else, I think that balances it some to make up for being a dead card sometimes.

I agree. Apart from that, I think this is a neat idea and the card looks cool. I would rather test it at $3 first and see whether it's too strong. I remember DXV wrote somewhere about card costs that for cards worth $2 - $4, it's more important than anything that you think about what opening with them would enable you to do in turns 3 and 4. With two Tinkers costing $3, you have the chance of Tinkering Estate and Tinker into a $5-card and then buy something for up to $3 if you're lucky. That seems comparable to opening Feast/Tinker but a little worse. Oh shoot, I forgot where I was going with my argument...

[XerxesPraelor]

Tinker two estates into an engine component, then a tinker and estate into a $5. From then on you can just trash coppers.

[Minotaur]

Tinker two estates into an engine component, then a tinker and estate into a $5. From then on you can just trash coppers.

Depends on when you draw them together.  It could be the second shuffle, or it could be some time later.  Tinker + Estate for a $5 card... I would think that it would be worth doing it immediately instead of saving it for trashing.

I definitely like making it cost $3 a lot more than I like the idea of buffing it and making it a $5 card.  It might still be ok at $4, and I would test it both ways.  I don't know if it should be balanced around how much fun it is to buy two of them on the first shuffle, but it's probably not broken.  I originally leaned toward $4 because it's stronger than Steward early and you might be able to farm tokens or get rid of it with a different TfB card.

It could be a dominant card at $3, just because you can buy them for the token and then whoops, too many of them?  Lolol, not anymore!

[Asper]

I like Tinker. The art is nice, too. It's really funny how many words there are in that "create" family to make cards of

Not really a criticism, rather a question: Isn't it rather untypical for Remodels to give a vanilla bonus? Not that i mind. I mean, there's certainly no law against that.

[LastFootnote]

Not really a criticism, rather a question: Isn't it rather untypical for Remodels to give a vanilla bonus? Not that i mind. I mean, there's certainly no law against that.

I think it's pretty atypical, yes. But Tinker is first and foremost a deck thinner. Also, it's not unusual for other TfB cards to have vanilla bonuses (Bishop, Apprentice).

But of course it's really a matter of practicality. I think Tinker would be too weak at any cost without the +$1 bonus. I could add a non-vanilla bonus instead (like Ambassador has), but the card already has a concept (tokens-for-remodel) and doesn't really want another one. Nor does it want more words. I was considering +1 Cards (or +2 Cards for $5), but I prefer that you know what your trashing options are before you play the card.

[Asper]

Not really a criticism, rather a question: Isn't it rather untypical for Remodels to give a vanilla bonus? Not that i mind. I mean, there's certainly no law against that.

I think it's pretty atypical, yes. But Tinker is first and foremost a deck thinner. Also, it's not unusual for other TfB cards to have vanilla bonuses (Bishop, Apprentice).

But of course it's really a matter of practicality. I think Tinker would be too weak at any cost without the +$1 bonus. I could add a non-vanilla bonus instead (like Ambassador has), but the card already has a concept (tokens-for-remodel) and doesn't really want another one. Nor does it want more words. I was considering +1 Cards (or +2 Cards for $5), but I prefer that you know what your trashing options are before you play the card.

Nah, i think it's fine the way it is. As i said, no criticism. It's just something i never before really thought about.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Just played 1v1 with Enterprise cards. We mainly wanted to playtest Tinker and, since I assumed you're testing it at $4, we had it cost $3. This was the kingdom:

Tinker ($3), Market Square, Dignitary, Craftsman, Mining Village, Ironworks, Noble Brigand, General, Junk Dealer, Inn

A quick game, nothing special really. I opened Craftsman/Tinker and he opened Junk Dealer and won by 4 points. Obviously, Market Square was the dominant card here. The possibility of opening Tinker + Craftsman or Ironworks or even double Tinker makes me inclined to say Tinker should rather cost $4. Even without the optional "mini-Forge" it's a little too good at $3, especially with other Trade Token cards. Although when we used the Forge option, we just did it because we had to trash another card with a Copper and wanted to replace that other card with a copy of it (like when you trash a Copper and a Silver to a Trading Post).
Besides, my friend used a General twice, I think, then trashed it. Dignitary wasn't gained. Only I used Craftsman to get a Junk Dealer, then trashed it as well. You know, Market Square^^

[LastFootnote]

Just played 1v1 with Enterprise cards. We mainly wanted to playtest Tinker and, since I assumed you're testing it at $4, we had it cost $3. This was the kingdom:

Tinker ($3), Market Square, Dignitary, Craftsman, Mining Village, Ironworks, Noble Brigand, General, Junk Dealer, Inn

A quick game, nothing special really. I opened Craftsman/Tinker and he opened Junk Dealer and won by 4 points. Obviously, Market Square was the dominant card here. The possibility of opening Tinker + Craftsman or Ironworks or even double Tinker makes me inclined to say Tinker should rather cost $4. Even without the optional "mini-Forge" it's a little too good at $3, especially with other Trade Token cards. Although when we used the Forge option, we just did it because we had to trash another card with a Copper and wanted to replace that other card with a copy of it (like when you trash a Copper and a Silver to a Trading Post).
Besides, my friend used a General twice, I think, then trashed it. Dignitary wasn't gained. Only I used Craftsman to get a Junk Dealer, then trashed it as well. You know, Market Square^^

Nice, thanks for testing it! I have now printed out a version for $3 as well (because I like wasting ink) and I'm trying to decide which to test first. Probably I'll test the $3 version first just because, if it's fine at both costs, I'll want it cheaper anyway. But it's great to have this data point that says it could be too strong.

It's disappointing to hear that the forge option didn't really come into play much. I guess I'll see if my tests turn out any better in that department.

[pacovf]

I'm impressed by your capacity to keep finding new uses for Trade tokens!

Slightly off-topic: what is the current wording of General? I have been thinking that the following wording is a bit simpler, although it works in a different way:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; when you would remove that card from play, you may put it on top of your deck instead.

I can't think of any one-shot that would break this, and it's shorter.

EDIT: Yeah, technically you can choose to put that card on top of your deck instead of putting that card on top of your deck. But you'll probably get slapped it you do that too many times.

[LastFootnote]

I'm impressed by your capacity to keep finding new uses for Trade tokens!

Slightly off-topic: what is the current wording of General? I have been thinking that the following wording is a bit simpler, although it works in a different way:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice; when you would remove that card from play, you may put it on top of your deck instead.

I can't think of any one-shot that would break this, and it's shorter.

EDIT: Yeah, technically you can choose to put that card on top of your deck instead of putting that card on top of your deck. But you'll probably get slapped it you do that too many times.

General was that for a while. The problem was that it was crazy confusing with Gambler, Mining Village, etc. You'd play General, using it to play Mining Village, and then trash the Mining Village for $2, which you could put on your deck. Then you'd play the Mining Village a second time, whereupon it would draw itself. Then of course you could play it a third time, possibly trashing it for another $2. The tracking was just a nightmare. Hence the updated version that prevented the card from leaving play. Now of course it has neither.

I could try going back to the previous General, which was this:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
Take a Trade token. You may play an Action card from your hand. You may pay a Trade token to play it again. You may pay another Trade token to play it a third time.

That version also got cut for being too confusing, but I don't know if I gave it enough of a chance.

EDIT: Oh, right, you asked about the current wording of General. Right now it's just:

General
Types: Action
Cost: $5
You may play an Action card from your hand twice. When you discard it from play, you may put it on top of your deck.

[LastFootnote]

Here are images for those updated versions of Convoy and Vendor that I'm going to test.

[Co0kieL0rd]

It's disappointing to hear that the forge option didn't really come into play much. I guess I'll see if my tests turn out any better in that department.

It was a fast game with strong trashing so I wasn't surprised. Anyway, I think the Forge option is a good thing!
By the way, we used the current simplified version of General. There just weren't the best combo cards for it either but we both think it's fine.

But... what is this?

I had no problem with the old Convoy/Guide or whatever, although you said some people did. But when I look at a card and the first thing I read is "Discard a card" and then draw, I don't feel good about this at all. That's just my first impression but you know, when a card looks un-fun, that's never good. It doesn't seem particularly powerful as well.